B2. Self vs. collective?

Self vs. collective? – Go fast alone or far together

Born as self-centered beings, we care for nothing but our survival. As young children, we simply cannot imagine a different viewpoint outside of ourselves. As we develop, we gain conceptual abilities. We may slowly realize we’re not the center but rather a node in a network of individuals and organisms interdependent on each other within and between societies.

Similarly, in their infancy, communities were aware of only the small group of people living in isolation, optimizing for their survival. Through the evolution of human civilization, we are now starting to realize the global network of individuals, intricate biodiversity systems, and climate dependencies around us.

We have a long way to go before we can adequately understand, appreciate, and care for humankind and the planet we inhabit. Our societies, as well as us individually, are in some ways still children, blindly caring for our self-interests, sub-optimizing for the detriment of the greater good.

While our intellect has started to pick up on the need for a more holistic view, our survival programming keeps us accumulating individual wealth, status, and comfort. Thus, we reached a point where we’ve merely started signaling the virtues of an inclusive mindset without acting upon them. We can recognize this as stating an upright principle as a vision of where we need to go without any intention of changing course to this higher road rather than the most comfortable one.

Arguments for increasing compassion and ending suboptimization, however, can be found in several domains. When looking at existential risks, ethics, and environmental science, a shared purpose beyond ourselves seems to be a necessity for progress and survival.

These risks range from nuclear war to ecological catastrophe and infectious diseases. These risks are unfathomable, the potential eradication of humankind. But the solutions that would significantly reduce the risk are often very straightforward if we were to take them seriously. Disarm nuclear warheads, regrow forests and stop factory farming or, at the very least, the overuse of antibiotics.

Asked to govern the earth to optimize for all life, we would likely find a long list of things we should do differently. Still, we don’t, often adhering to the logic that the global problem dwarfs our efforts in their totality. It’s a peculiar argument to assume that if we individually cannot impact the entire planet, it is not worth the effort. Interestingly, many solutions and actions are left as low-hanging fruit with a tremendously beneficial impact because of this attitude. The emerging practice of Effective Altruism has shown that an individual today can, with merely small donations, help save several human lives, countless animals, and thousands of tons of CO2. Money that would otherwise buy us a nice dinner over the weekend, can transform the life’s of people in poverty or neglected animals. Here we really can go fast alone while helping the collective go far.

“You can’t help others before you help yourself.” We all heard the saying, and it seems reasonable. Conveniently even as it allows us to carry on our self-help-themed and self-absorbed life’s undisturbed. Still, it seems unlikely that today’s increased anxiety, stress, and mental problems suffer from an inadequate focus on ourselves. It’s a complicated issue without silver-bullet solutions. But it’s worth pondering how much unhealthy self-doubt naturally goes away when we shift the focus to larger causes. We could also consider the positive effects on how we feel better after altruistic acts or how it may favor us through reciprocal acts of gratitude. But that’s missing the point. What won’t be missed is an untainted, pure intention of wanting to help rather than hoping for something in return.

Before becoming egoless and enlightened, though, we may be helped by a less ambiguous approach. Let’s turn to math. Applying math to understand interactions using game theory is a fascinating field. Much can be learned from modeling transactions between individuals who cooperate or cheat for a corresponding reward, depending on the outcome. Assumptions are made that cooperating parties will yield the highest combined value. At the same time, one is cheating, and the other is trying to cooperate, which will reward the cheating party more (sub-optimized). Here psychology and preferences play a part in how we respond. But as the game is repeated, we realize that trust between the parties to optimize for both, not oneself, becomes the crucial determining factor.

The learning is a valuable reminder of an intuitive understanding of trust that most of us share. If we want better outcomes in our interactions with people, whether commercial projects, romances, or friendships, we all need trust. And how do we gain trust? We repeat our game. That is, make our interactions recurring and long-term, as this will ensure both parties are acting out of the greater good for both, not just for one.

This is not to downplay self-reliance as we wish not to be desperately dependent on others. If we seek to cover our needs while keeping the stoics in mind for good measure, we’re at a good place for starting fruitful relationships and ending toxic ones. It lays the groundwork for an equal relationship built on mutual benefit, not one-sided dependence—a relationship of trust.

SYNTHESIS:

• - Aim to move your focus and goals further away in time as well as further away from yourself.
• - Optimizing long-term and for the better of all people will generate more value and less anxiety. Create trust through repeated game, i.e., long term relations.
• - Acquire skills and traits to avoid critical dependence, but collaborate for leverage, marginal utility, and selflessly building a community.